Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 50

Thread: Red Schoendist legit Hof ?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    1,403
    By today's standards, do you mean the availability of sabermetrics? That would be a valid argument, but it doesn't measure heart. As for Musial, he's the Really Big Star, but as for "being there," Red's the Really Big Heart.
    Born to an age where horror has become commonplace, where tragedy has, by its monotonous repetition, become a parody of sorrow, we need to fence off a few parks where humans try to be fair, where skill has some hope of reward, [and] where absurdity has a harder time than usual getting a ticket." -- Thomas Boswell, 1984

  2. #22
    As a player, he's a little bit under par. I usually don't like to do the whole "combo" reasoning unless BOTH player and managing factors are borderline or better. I don't approach it as simple addition.
    I don't think Red Schoendienst's managing career would move me to say he's a solid HOF choice.

    For those who say he's fine "combo" pick, how would Willie Randolph sit with you? I realizes there's a little bit of projection involved, but he's done well so far and could come back with similar success or better...

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by dgarza View Post
    For those who say he's fine "combo" pick, how would Willie Randolph sit with you? I realizes there's a little bit of projection involved, but he's done well so far and could come back with similar success or better...
    Willie is borderline in as a player. As a manager he is not even close. Schoendienst is borderline out for me as a player, but given his relationship to the Cardinals and longevity, I have no problem with his inclusion in the HOF. It'd be a bit hypocritical of me if I did since I see Gil Hodges as a HOFer for similar reasons to Schoendienst.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    1,403
    Good comparison, jjpm74.
    Born to an age where horror has become commonplace, where tragedy has, by its monotonous repetition, become a parody of sorrow, we need to fence off a few parks where humans try to be fair, where skill has some hope of reward, [and] where absurdity has a harder time than usual getting a ticket." -- Thomas Boswell, 1984

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    963
    i'm a huge Gil Hodges fan for induction so i'm with jjpm. Would joe torre fit the same category?
    Last edited by henrich; 12-07-2012 at 06:53 PM.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by henrich View Post
    i'm a huge Gil Hodges fan for induction so i'm with jjpm. Would joe tore fit the same category?
    Torre does not fit the comparison because neither his playing career nor his managerial career need a crutch.
    Last edited by dgarza; 12-07-2012 at 06:54 PM.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by jjpm74 View Post
    Willie is borderline in as a player. As a manager he is not even close. Schoendienst is borderline out for me as a player, but given his relationship to the Cardinals and longevity, I have no problem with his inclusion in the HOF. It'd be a bit hypocritical of me if I did since I see Gil Hodges as a HOFer for similar reasons to Schoendienst.
    Randolph as a manager is not even close. But I don't think Schoendienst as a manager is really close either. Lower level coaching duties and the like should not be taken into account for the National Baseball HOF, IMHO. I don't think there are any rules against it, but it seems like a stretch to me.

    I have no problem with the National Baseball HOF looking at managerial or high executive relationships with team, but anything other than that does not belong in the National Baseball HOF. Other kinds of lower level team relationship should be taken into account for individual team/franchise HOFs only. That's the more proper place for that consideration.
    As far as I know, there is no precedent for a HOFer being elected with lower level team relationship and longevity as a real factor.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    963
    i'm good with that. I think Torre should be in on his own accord as a player.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    mariners country
    Posts
    23,570
    Quote Originally Posted by henrich View Post
    i'm a huge Gil Hodges fan for induction so i'm with jjpm. Would joe torre fit the same category?
    --Torre is more qualified as both a player and
    a manager than either Red or Gil.

  10. #30
    Torre should be in the HOF even if he never managed a single game. Torre should be in the HOF even if he never played a single game. He is one of a handful of people who belongs in both wings of the HOF.

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by jjpm74 View Post
    Torre should be in the HOF even if he never managed a single game. Torre should be in the HOF even if he never played a single game. He is one of a handful of people who belongs in both wings of the HOF.
    I can't think of too many others. Off the top of my head, Clark Griffith maybe.

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by dgarza View Post
    I can't think of too many others. Off the top of my head, Clark Griffith maybe.
    Griffith, Torre and maybe some pioneers of the game like Al Spalding and Monte Ward. That's about it. Torre is pretty unique as the only post integration person associated with the game who has a case for belonging to both wings of the hall.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Under the Knickerbocker beer sign at the Polo Grounds
    Posts
    5,885
    Schoendienst was the second best second baseman in the NL in the era of Jackie Robinson. Arguably, he was the best pure SECOND baseman some of that time, as Robinson played entire seasons at 1B and 3B, as well as some outfield. Robinson was a far greater player, but Schoendienst would have been the best 2B in the NL most years, and being the best in the league at your position for a period of years in most times is a reasonable place to start the "Why not?" zone of potential HOFers. He's not the most compelling HOFer, but he's far from a Frankie Frisch Cabal selection, and I would not sanction ripping his plaque out.
    "I do not care if half the league strikes. Those who do it will encounter quick retribution. All will be suspended and I don't care if it wrecks the National League for five years. This is the United States of America and one citizen has as much right to play as another. The National League will go down the line with Robinson whatever the consequences. You will find if you go through with your intention that you have been guilty of complete madness."

    NL President Ford Frick, 1947

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southeastern PA
    Posts
    19,807
    Blog Entries
    34
    I ran a project here to see if anyone could get in both ways, and no one made it.

    Rube Foster of the Negro Leagues deserves mention. If we ever get to inducting Japanese players, there would be some additional candidates. Sadaharu Oh, Shigeo Nagashima, and Hiromitsu Ochiai all come to mind.
    Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
    Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
    A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzy Bear View Post
    Schoendienst was the second best second baseman in the NL in the era of Jackie Robinson. Arguably, he was the best pure SECOND baseman some of that time, as Robinson played entire seasons at 1B and 3B, as well as some outfield. Robinson was a far greater player, but Schoendienst would have been the best 2B in the NL most years, and being the best in the league at your position for a period of years in most times is a reasonable place to start the "Why not?" zone of potential HOFers. He's not the most compelling HOFer, but he's far from a Frankie Frisch Cabal selection, and I would not sanction ripping his plaque out.
    Well, the Robinson-era was only 10 years, so being the 2nd best 2B (and clearly not #1) in the NL in just 10 years is just an OK place to start (this could mean you are only the 4th best 2B over all, both leagues). But I don't think we should just assume Red was the 2nd best NL 2B of the time, or even the 40s-50s. I think both Schoendiesnt and Eddie Stanky are equally 2nd best, and Stanky may have the better peak. So I don't think this "2nd best" argument is made any stronger.

    The difference between the two is that Schoendienst had longevity. Stanky also played until he was older (37), but he got such a late start in the game, which keeps him out of HOF considerations (made majors age 27).

  16. #36
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Northern plains
    Posts
    9,615
    Quote Originally Posted by keystone View Post
    By today's standards, do you mean the availability of sabermetrics? That would be a valid argument, but it doesn't measure heart. As for Musial, he's the Really Big Star, but as for "being there," Red's the Really Big Heart.
    Exactly
    I know that this a discussion forum and that's what we do, but the constant rewriting one's career, based on "today's standards" is really cheesy, IMO. It's kind of demeaning to the people who watched him play, to dismiss him base on our "new knowledge." By all accounts , Red was an allstar 2B (10X), a team leader, and a championship player. And I think that a .281 hitting 2B, with the rest of his resume, is a pretty good selection.

    ........ but like most of us, I WASN'T around for his career.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Under the Knickerbocker beer sign at the Polo Grounds
    Posts
    5,885
    Quote Originally Posted by dgarza View Post
    Well, the Robinson-era was only 10 years, so being the 2nd best 2B (and clearly not #1) in the NL in just 10 years is just an OK place to start (this could mean you are only the 4th best 2B over all, both leagues). But I don't think we should just assume Red was the 2nd best NL 2B of the time, or even the 40s-50s. I think both Schoendiesnt and Eddie Stanky are equally 2nd best, and Stanky may have the better peak. So I don't think this "2nd best" argument is made any stronger.

    The difference between the two is that Schoendienst had longevity. Stanky also played until he was older (37), but he got such a late start in the game, which keeps him out of HOF considerations (made majors age 27).
    Can't agree with rating Stanky on a par with Schoendienst. His short-term offensive peak was better, but his short career, coupled with Schoendienst's defensive superiority, put Red clearly ahead. Stanky has a case based on OBP, but it begs the question of why it took Stanky so long to reach the major leagues.
    "I do not care if half the league strikes. Those who do it will encounter quick retribution. All will be suspended and I don't care if it wrecks the National League for five years. This is the United States of America and one citizen has as much right to play as another. The National League will go down the line with Robinson whatever the consequences. You will find if you go through with your intention that you have been guilty of complete madness."

    NL President Ford Frick, 1947

  18. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzy Bear View Post
    Can't agree with rating Stanky on a par with Schoendienst. His short-term offensive peak was better, but his short career, coupled with Schoendienst's defensive superiority, put Red clearly ahead. Stanky has a case based on OBP, but it begs the question of why it took Stanky so long to reach the major leagues.
    Argeed career wise, but I was only referring your Robinson-era comment. From 1947-1956, Red and Eddie were the same.
    Last edited by dgarza; 12-08-2012 at 10:27 AM.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southeastern PA
    Posts
    19,807
    Blog Entries
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Hart View Post
    Exactly
    I know that this a discussion forum and that's what we do, but the constant rewriting one's career, based on "today's standards" is really cheesy, IMO. It's kind of demeaning to the people who watched him play, to dismiss him base on our "new knowledge." By all accounts , Red was an allstar 2B (10X), a team leader, and a championship player. And I think that a .281 hitting 2B, with the rest of his resume, is a pretty good selection.

    ........ but like most of us, I WASN'T around for his career.
    The problem with that is simple: it's an excuse to perpetuate ignorance. Now, Schoendienst isn't a bad choice for the HOF based on his entire career in the game, but it wasn't like the writers voted him in. He never got more than 42.6% of their vote, usually in the 30's. So it isn't like the writers who voted on him (and saw him) thought he was definitely a HOFer for his play. It was the VC that put him in, and while they attached the "player" label to him as an inductee, I think they clearly considered the sum of his career. Furthermore, the VC is the most suspect element of HOF selections.
    Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
    Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
    A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by jalbright View Post
    The problem with that is simple: it's an excuse to perpetuate ignorance. Now, Schoendienst isn't a bad choice for the HOF based on his entire career in the game, but it wasn't like the writers voted him in. He never got more than 42.6% of their vote, usually in the 30's. So it isn't like the writers who voted on him (and saw him) thought he was definitely a HOFer for his play. It was the VC that put him in, and while they attached the "player" label to him as an inductee, I think they clearly considered the sum of his career. Furthermore, the VC is the most suspect element of HOF selections.
    Question.... It looks like Schoendiest was voted it immediately as he hit the VC ballot. It looked like he fell off the Writers' ballot with strong but not close support, then easily made it via VC just 5-6 years later. It this correct? Has this ever happened before? Is the VC allowed to consider more career elements than the BBWAA is?

    Hall of Fame
    1969 BBWAA (19.1%)
    1970 BBWAA (32.3%)
    1971 BBWAA (34.2%)
    1972 BBWAA (26.3%)
    1973 BBWAA (25.3%)
    1974 BBWAA (30.1%)
    1975 BBWAA (26.0%)
    1976 BBWAA (33.2%)
    1977 BBWAA (27.4%)
    1978 BBWAA (34.3%)
    1979 BBWAA (36.8%)
    1980 BBWAA (42.6%)
    1981 BBWAA (41.4%)
    1982 BBWAA (32.5%)
    1983 BBWAA (39.0%)
    1989 Veterans (inducted)
    Selected to HOF in 1989
    by Veteran's Committee
    Last edited by dgarza; 12-08-2012 at 11:55 AM.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •